A review of the morality of euthanasia
In Belgium, before the enactment of the law, there were no guidelines or case law regarding to mercy killing.
Research on euthanasia
Does it expand to involuntary euthanasia? With these options, she may have chosen to fight for life, and she may be alive today to raise and care for her family. In addition, legal and medical theory state that patients are not afraid of euthanasia, but their biggest fear is that their request for euthanasia will be denied This liberty interest permits physician-assisted suicide. On the other hand the criminalization of euthanasia results in a restriction of autonomy. Our starting hypothesis is proved through the next, Table 2. An act is moral when compared to the alternatives it produces the most good and the least evil for the most people, with each person being treated equally in the calculation. It is important in arguments based on suffering to distinguish between physical, psychological, social and existential which includes spiritual suffering. The argument will be made that there is no difference between a physician providing someone a pill physician-assisted suicide and a physician injecting someone with medication euthanasia. Positive legal regulation of some specific medical service in the United States — physician assisted suicide. Rights are created or abolished depending upon a utilitarian formula. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. In fact, in the Netherlands deaths from physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia have risen from 2, in , to 3, in , a thirty-three percent increase in five years. Evaluation Suffering is an ambiguous phenomenon in our contemporary world.
At the same time, these authors are divided into two fractions: radical and moderate. An act is moral when compared to the alternatives it produces the most good and the least evil for the most people, with each person being treated equally in the calculation.
My opinion was based upon my years of witnessing extreme human suffering. It could be argued that to subject a terminally ill person to medical treatment which produces horrible suffering goes against the aforementioned article.
It would be tragic for a person to commit suicide with these symptoms, especially when they are in a medical institution and can be probably treated.
Gomez, ; Muller et al. Terminally ill patients who wish to endure their suffering have this right.
Pain, being caused physically e. All the necessary regulatory tools would have to be applied to avoid the abuse of autonomy by the heteronomy of others including the abuse of legalized euthanasia in the form of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.
Euthanasia is not only the expression of a fundamental freedom but also a right one has.
How a person dies not only determines the nature of the final period of his existence, but in many cases the enduring memories held by those who love him.
Ethical issues of euthanasia essay
Voluntary Euthanasia Should Be Legalized. It is obvious that a legal obligation to administrate euthanasia does not exist; the establishment of such a legal obligation would require a substantial transformation of our democratic society, based on fundamental rights and liberties. Moreland JP. There are several significant flaws with the argument, however. However, human life has a meaning only in a case when the brain is operational 24 , and from the times of Confucius, we have had philosophical thought that biological life has not more value of the man The determination of the competency of a terminally ill patient will always be subjective from the viewpoint of the doctor and the witnesses making the decision. One can only imagine the feelings and thoughts that a terminally ill person, enduring extreme pain, must experience. To be sure, the physician needs to do more interviews with the patient, but spread over a longer period, in order to follow better the development of state of his mind. This type of the suffering will depend on the attitudes and objectives of the suffering person — to what extent the person is able to modify attitudes and to adjust objectives to the new situation. Thus, many people will prematurely and unnecessarily die when they could have been properly treated for their medical condition or at least for their depression and hopelessness.
Clearly the above argument is legitimate and rational. There are at least four different types of reasoning based on the right to die: moral reasoning euthanasia as a moral rightlegal reasoning euthanasia as a legal righteuthanasia as a positive right and euthanasia as a negative right.
based on 7 review